get_checklist

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the return is plain text rather than structured data, which is mild context, but says nothing about size, caching, or how the checklist should be applied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then the value enumeration. Dense but with no filler. Slightly weakened by the appositive-heavy enumeration that would read better as a structured list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is usage routing — for a tool sharing a namespace with get_framework, get_principle, and get_mode, the description gives no basis for choosing between them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is no enum, so the description carries the full burden of parameter semantics — and it does, enumerating all ten accepted 'kind' values with parenthetical explanations. The text is in quotes so values are usable verbatim; the gap is that 'concept', 'launch', 'conventions', 'taste', and 'limits' are listed without any gloss and it never states the values are exhaustive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a working checklist as text') and enumerates the kinds available. However, it never distinguishes this from siblings like get_framework, get_principle, or get_mode, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval tool applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternatives. The agent must infer from the kind labels alone that this is the right tool versus get_framework or get_principle. Some glosses ('brief interrogation', 'critique pass') hint at intent but are not routing instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.